Ag-Gag Update

A clandestine video showing Tennessee Walking Horses being tortured in the guise of "training" was released to the public by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) a few days ago, and the images have incensed just about everyone who has seen them. The public outrage is well-placed. Trainers who abuse their animals are criminals and their methods despicable.

Kudos to HSUS for uncovering the abuse and for reminding us that there’s still a lot of work to be done.

The fact that some Walking Horse trainers continue to heap abuse on the horses in their care simply to win ribbons and make a few dollars shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s been going on for a long time, acknowledged with a wink and a nod. Nor should we be surprised that soring continues 40 years after federal legislation was passed to eliminate the practice. The Horse Protection Act has been underfunded, poorly enforced, and largely ineffective.

The subject of the HSUS video isn’t the subject of this column, however. Attacks on the method of exposing the abuse is.

According to HSUS, the incriminating video was recorded during a period of several weeks last year at Whittier Stables, a Tennessee farm operated by nationally prominent trainer Jackie McConnell. The trainer presumably didn’t know that he and his employees were on camera and they almost certainly didn’t give their permission for the taping. Undercover investigations like this one can be a necessary part of investigative reporting, but they’re going to become more problematic if state laws are passed to protect the privacy of horse farms and other agricultural operations.

Anti-Whistleblowing

So-called "ag-gag" legislation was passed earlier this year in Iowa and Utah and similar bills are in the works in several other states, largely in response to undercover investigations that exposed animal abuse on large "factory farms" or in slaughter facilities. The idea behind the legislation is to restrict the ability of activists to conduct clandestine reporting at farms and other agricultural facilities.

State Sen. Joe Seng, a sponsor of the legislation in Iowa, recently defended the new law on National Public Radio:

"Agriculture is one of our most important industries," Sen. Seng said. "It’s sort of a protection mechanism saying that we do not want to put up with this in our state."

Put up with what, exactly?

Interestingly, Sen. Seng didn’t address the animal abuse that the investigations sometimes uncover, leading to the inevitable question of just what—and who—the law actually protects.

Critics have a different take on the gag laws, arguing that they infringe on the guarantees of free speech and a free press found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Aside from the constitutional issues is the supposed need for secrecy about farm operations.

"This new statute only reinforces the idea that Iowa’s farms have something to hide," according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Legislation that would have made it illegal to make photographs or video recordings on a farm without the owner’s permission never made it out of the Iowa Senate last year. This year’s legislation takes a more subtle, backdoor approach, but that doesn’t make the law any more palatable. Rather than directly limit the right to report on agricultural activities, the Iowa law makes it a misdemeanor for a job applicant to lie on an application for a farm job if the real intent of the employment is to harm the business. Penalties include up to a year in jail and a $1,500 fine.

The driving force behind ag-gag laws seems to be farmers and sympathetic legislators who think agricultural operations are being unfairly targeted by animal rights activists. But a farm is a farm, whether the business is raising cattle or hogs, or supposedly training Tennessee Walking Horses. The whistleblower who recorded the activities at Whittier Stables in Tennessee most likely would be subject to criminal prosecution for his efforts if Tennessee had an ag-gag law similar to Iowa’s on the books. Unless, of course, the undercover videographer indicated on the job application that the intent of employment actually was to expose abuse of horses at the farm, which isn’t likely.

Legislation that restricts whistleblowing is offensive to me, both as a journalist and as an individual concerned with animal welfare. If your state is considering legislation to restrict undercover investigations of agricultural operations, whether or not the law states the real purpose of its backers, make sure you know what you’re getting before deciding to support the effort.

Does the public have a right to know what goes on behind farm gates, even if it takes a violation of someone’s privacy rights?

About the Author

Milt Toby

Milt Toby is an author and attorney with a lifelong interest and involvement in the horse industry. He grew up showing American Saddlebreds, then switched to hunters, dressage, and combined training. He was an American Horse Shows Association steward at some of the country’s largest horse shows, and he has been to the races on six continents. Milt’s sixth book, Dancer’s Image: The Forgotten Story of the 1968 Kentucky Derby, was published recently by The History Press. His earlier books include The Complete Equine Legal and Business Handbook and Ruffian. Milt is a past Chair of the Kentucky Bar Association’s Equine Law Section. His website is www.miltonctoby.com.

Comments

The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of The Horse or Blood-Horse Publications. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. All readers are encouraged to leave comments; all points of view are welcome, but comments that are discourteous and/or off-topic may be removed.

The only proponents of "ag gag" bills are those who have something to hide. It's a big, red flag that something is happening on their property that is either illegal, unscrupulous, unethical, inhumane, immoral, monstrous or all of the above. They are advertising their guilt before they're even caught. Why else would they be so fearful of the public finding out what they're doing?

Cindy Rullman

22 May 2012 8:56 AM

My impression of the "Ag-Gag" bills is to protect the producer, but from a different perspective than discussed here. There have been instances where the so-called whistleblower may have created situations in order to generate sensational footage. In other situations, the person went along with an act and failed to report it to management, which was also a violation of company policy that they were made aware of at the time of employment. Furthermore, the current TWH expose is another example of how the undercover investigation took place months ago, and the reporting organization (HSUS in this case) sat on the footage until it was convenient to release to the general public rather than addressing the problem at the time of discovery. I appreciate the efforts of those who shed light on abusive practices, but to conduct clandestine investigations and then withhold the findings in order to profit financially or emotively does not help the situation in question.

Betsy

22 May 2012 3:51 PM

I feel the best solution is to make it easy for people to openly inspect and tape farming operations, as long as they do not interfere with the operations, employees, or animals.

I know this idea will raise vehement objections about safety and other concerns, but I think it can be done if everyone focuses on animal welfare rather than pointing fingers.

Yes, some people think that keeping animals in any domestic setting is cruel and that slaughter by any means is an abomination. Others think that animals are mere objects that can be "done to" without a second thought.

While these two extremes can never be reconciled, we must somehow find a middle ground. Every animal, even one that was born to be eaten, deserves to be treated humanely.

Elissa

22 May 2012 4:53 PM

Thanks, Betsy, for raising an interesting point about the timing of things. Some proposed state legislation includes a limit on how long an individual or organization can sit on evidence of abuse before releasing the information to the public. My understanding of the HSUS investigation is that the tapes were provided to federal authorities for prosecution before they were released to the public.

Milt

23 May 2012 5:29 AM

Perspective is an important point. I am aware of a case where a young man, with SPCA encouragement, went to work on a breeding farm. His job was specifically to clean stalls. In a months work, he cleaned 7 stalls, and took pictures of the dirty stalls he was supposed to clean. After being fired for not cleaning stalls, he went to the local SPCA with the pictures of dirty stalls. The SPCA got a court order based on "unsanitary conditions" and seized dozens of horses from the farm.

Don

23 May 2012 5:40 PM

If the organizations promoting these on-farm investigations had reputations I could support, I would look favorably on their actions. HSUS in my experience is not as sincere about animal welfare as they are about bringing in millions of dollars for self-promotion. They appear willing to harm or allow harm to animals in order to do so, and they use emotion to mislead the public from whom they wring this money. I support the increase of science-based animal welfare audit programs by third-party entities that don't have selfish agendas.

Kathy

24 May 2012 5:56 PM

Someone has to be the "voice" for suffering animals. No rescue organization (such as HSUS)is perfect but the average individual does not have the money or ability to expose the cruelties that some horses suffer.

Sandra

24 May 2012 10:33 PM

I find it hard to believe that a stable employed a worker to clean stalls and after a month had only cleaned 7. That just is not believable. I am also surprised that the NPR interviewer did not question Senator Seng about his remark. The truth is in the middle, which is where we should all try to be on this issue and actually, most issues. Special interests are just that, special to that entity. Any legislature that favors one over the other is suspect and also open to our court system. Gotta love the court system.

Susan LaVonne

24 May 2012 10:50 PM

I'm a bit with Susan about the 7-stalls-in-a-month story. I'm assuming the worker cleaned 7 stalls daily and left the rest uncleaned, but it's still a hard story to swallow. I've worked on numerous horse farms. If no one at the farm noticed by day two that some stalls weren't getting done, there is a serious management issue at that farm. It wouldn't take a month for such a poor worker to be fired from any farm where I was employed.

Elissa

25 May 2012 11:20 AM

The conditions depicted in this video are truly deplorable and the actions should be punished harshly. That said, many of these animal rights activists are no more than agent provocateurs, who incite the very incidents that they video. They misrepresent themselves when they are hired in order to work their mischief. That is why several states have enacted prohibitive legislation.HSUS certainly takes advantage of these videos to line its own coffers, a look at their tax returns will verify this fact.The sad fact is that they spend much less than 10% of their income in actually helping animals. Their main expense is executive compensation, followed closely by PR and advertising expenses.

Walter Carroll

25 May 2012 1:07 PM

I'm skeptical of everything the HSUS does because their efforts & monies are primarily spent on marketing & large salaries; not on the abused animals they sensationalize. But the ag-gag bill seems to go a bit farther than I'm comfortable. Less government is best! We can't and shouldn't let the government mandate everything; employment hiring practices are already in place. If the employer is following good animal hubandry practices there's nothing to worry about; but if there is proof of REAL abuse, they should be called out. But remember, farms are where our food comes from, so something has to die in order for us to eat meat; will that be considered abuse? While the bill might sound simple on the surface, there could be farther reaching repercussions.

Featured Adoptable Horse

Smiley

Smiley is a 13 y/o TB gelding who was recently diagnosed with ringbone. Before his diagnosis, he was a wonderfully calm, show jumper "packer" lesson horse and was also the barn babysitter. Now, we'd love for him to be a full-time companion/babysi ... Read More